Although the discount stores in Goreville’s central shopping district are expected to close within five years as a result of competition from a SpendLess discount department store that just opened, those locations will not stay vacant for long. In the five years since the opening of Colson’s, a nondiscount department store, a new store has opened at the location of every store in the shopping district that closed because it could not compete with Colson’s.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
A. Many customers of Colson’s are expected to do less shopping there than they did before the SpendLess store opened.
B. Increasingly, the stores that have opened in the central shopping district since Colson’s opened have been discount stores.
C. At present, the central shopping district has as many stores operating in it as it ever had.
D. Over the course of the next five years, it is expected that Goreville’s population will grow at a faster rate than it has for the past several decades.
E. Many stores in the central shopping district sell types of merchandise that are not available at either SpendLess or Colson’s.
这题的整体思路我都不明白，有哪位nn可以enlighten一下？答案是B.
很久就看到你的帖子了， 说说把
作者想通过 其它的例子来类比现在的情况， 说以前colson很强势，周围的店都跑了， 但总会有新的涌入，
所以咧， 现在spendless强势，周围的店也要跑，那么应该会一样有新的进来。
如果削弱类比， 只需找出两个例子的不同点即可
B选项说， 以前涌到COLSON附近的都是打折店，而colson本身不打折， 这说明那些店有优势去抢地盘
现在附近倒的都是打折店，spendless本身也打折， 那再用打折店去抢地盘就行不通了
谢谢你的回答 不过没太看懂
你的意思是说spendless和colson不是同一个时期的吗？ 这是怎么看出来的？是从文章的时态上看出来的吗？
还有现在附近倒的都是打折店，spendless本身也打折， 那再用打折店去抢地盘就行不通了，文章只说those locations will not stay vacant for long但没说进来的一定会是discount stores啊
这题我怎么觉得前所未有的难啊 完全没头绪 GWD其他题倒不是这样的
谢谢你的回答 不过没太看懂
你的意思是说spendless和colson不是同一个时期的吗？ 这是怎么看出来的？是从文章的时态上看出来的吗？
还有现在附近倒的都是打折店，spendless本身也打折， 那再用打折店去抢地盘就行不通了，文章只说those locations will not stay vacant for long但没说进来的一定会是discount stores啊
这题我怎么觉得前所未有的难啊 完全没头绪 GWD其他题倒不是这样的
B答案说了,
Increasingly, the stores that have opened in the central shopping district since Colson’s opened have been discount stores 新开张的店都会是打折店.
这就固定了在S店开张之后进去的都会是打折店,这就导致了结论的不严密.
我仔细想了想,我上一个回复应该错了.
其实只要证明两个例子类比不恰当就可以了,在S店附近会不会开新店不是重点.
原文的结论是S店附近的铺位不会空,论据是C店附近的铺位不空.B答案割裂了论据和论点的逻辑关系:
在C店附近的打折店铺位总会有新的打折店进驻,因为C店是不打折的;
S店附近的店也是打折店,这和论据符合,但因为S店也打折,所以不符合论据的第二个条件,附近的商铺会否有新店进驻将不得而知.
以上为本人愚见,往高手指点.
我认为原文加进B答案后可以简化为以下思路:
打折店+非打折=商铺不被空置;
一旦变成打折店+打折店, or, 非打折+非打折便不可得到"商铺不被空置"的结论.
谢谢你 这题的逻辑我懂了 但有一些underlying assumptions还是不太清楚
首先C店周围的店铺倒闭进驻的是discount stores,这由B答案看出
其次S点周围的店铺倒闭进驻的是discount stores，这由什么看出呢？
assumption : though small discount shops closed because of a department discount store, the vacancy will soon be occupied
argument : since Colson's opening, small shops has taken all the places abandoned
Most serious weakening conter-argument : the shops opening are all discount ones that will soon be squeezed out by the department discount store, that what B what to say. A is ok too but less strong compared to B
同意你的说法，但我九楼的问题从哪里看出来的呢
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |